AMOL Part 1: The Gathering Storm Speculation

[RobertAlexWillis]

Why would it have failed? I don't think that it has failed. Who was it that said "it is clean", with wonder trembling in his voice (just after the cleansing)? Was it Narishma? Anyway, I don't think it has failed.

I find that to be highly unlikely. The two evils of Shadar Logoth and the Dark One are contained in the wound. If they weren't, they would be fighting each other off (and probably killing Rand in the process). I don't think the wound in Rand's side contains enough contamination to taint the saidin anew.

 

-sigh- I guess that saying "I know this is a huge stretch" and phrasing everything conditionally isn't enough, is it?

 

For the record, I don't think the Cleansing failed either.  That was a low probability speculation (hence the phrase "I know this is a huge stretch").

 

When I phrase everything with an "if", and add that this is a "worst case scenario" and "I know this is a huge stretch", that means that I think its unlikely, too.

 

Anyhow, this would imply that the older male channelers are still at risk of losing control (see Semirhage's comments in KoD for confirmation) and it will fall on the younger channelers to "put them down".

 

The idea that older channelers might have to be "put down" would be difficult to square with Logain's coming glory ... unless its a glorious death in Tarmon Gai'don ...

[rhadamanthus]

The idea that older channelers might have to be "put down" would be difficult to square with Logain's coming glory ... unless its a glorious death in Tarmon Gai'don ...

 

Meh.  It's not a foregone conclusion.  They "might" have to police themselves.

 

aside:  I think Rand's burgeoning insanity will be critical to completing the fisher king symbolism after he goes into beggar mode. 

 

[CUBAREY]

Anyhow, this would imply that the older male channelers are still at risk of losing control (see Semirhage's comments in KoD for confirmation) and it will fall on the younger channelers to "put them down".

 

Why would this be the case. The older channelers would have started using Saiden at the same time as younger channelers and what causes madness is the use of tainted saiden. Thus should not the probability of an older channeler and a younger channeler that began using saiden at the same time be the same?

[RobertAlexWillis]

I think ... think ... that the idea was "older" in the sense of having used the Power longer, not in the sense of actual age.

 

And yes, if it was meant in the sense of age, then it makes no sense.  Those who have used the Power for a longer period of time would be at greater risk.

 

Of course, it still doesn't square with Logain, since he's been using the Power for as long as anyone.  I doubt that being "gentled" made the accumulated effect of the taint less.

 

Thinking about it though, I don't think that having to kill off the potentially crazy ones would faze the Asha'man at all.  They already seem pretty OK with that.

[Shard]

I think there are alot of reasons they won't like learning Laughter and Tears as it may be a humbling experience. It would probably have to be personal to each Asha'man as well so personal humbling I think would not be an enjoyable thing.

[seasnake]

Cadsuane could do anything at this point, we know so little.  She could best the toughest Asha'man in some kind of duel and teach them all humility towards the Aes Sedai who have been doing this longer and have better control.  She could inform them that the name Asha'man means "he who smells like the latrines" and Rand just sucks at the Old Tongue.  She could force Rand to face the reality that half his Asha'man are now evil and he needs to go back at duke it out, with huge losses to them all.  She could teach them all "laughter and tears."

 

We know very little.  I think its on purpose.

[RobertAlexWillis]

She could inform them that the name Asha'man means "he who smells like the latrines" and Rand just sucks at the Old Tongue.

 

Nice.  :D

[pxnsolid]

Ok it was Cads that said he had to learn laughter and tears. Viewing says Rand and all the AM need to learn something they arent going to like. My take has always been that she has to teach something that wont be liked. Someonehas to teach him laugther and tears. coming into FoH theres a dulling of feelings. The only real emotion we see from Rand after that is usually rage, but anger to some degree. Twice in FoH he cries, when Moraine dies, and when Avi and Mat arent dead. So starting in tDR feelings start to shut off. Rand tries too in tGH against his friends, but hes frankly no good at it. Then we get shown what makes him feel, before the trend of unfeeling continues. huge catalyst incoming in moraines rescue, the 2 things that made Rand cry. Moraines life/death and someone whos dead being not dead. Sorry for midnight bout of insomnia based rambling :P

[Charlz Guybon]

I predict Birgitte will die making a heroic stand leaving Elayne distraught and bringing her a bit back to Earth. Later on of course she will return in a stirring scene when Mat blows the Horn, revealing she is still bound to it and destined to be born after Gaidal Cain. (Her return will probably occur in the 2nd or 3rd volume, however.)

[RobertAlexWillis]

I predict Birgitte will die making a heroic stand leaving Elayne distraught and bringing her a bit back to Earth. Later on of course she will return in a stirring scene when Mat blows the Horn, revealing she is still bound to it and destined to be born after Gaidal Cain. (Her return will probably occur in the 2nd or 3rd volume, however.)

 

I sincerely doubt that Birgitte will die at all.  In her viewing of Birgitte, Min saw images that, " indicated more adventures than a woman could have in one lifetime. Strangely, some were connected to an ugly man who was older that she, and others to an ugly man who was much younger, yet somehow Min knew they were the same man."  (WH ch 12)

 

Since this seems to be the only life where Birgitte actually came into the world as someone "older" than Gaidal, it seems she is destined to some post-Tarmon Gai'don adventures with him in this life.  So, she isn't going to bite it.

[mb]

I predict Birgitte will die making a heroic stand leaving Elayne distraught and bringing her a bit back to Earth. Later on of course she will return in a stirring scene when Mat blows the Horn, revealing she is still bound to it and destined to be born after Gaidal Cain. (Her return will probably occur in the 2nd or 3rd volume, however.)

Like another poster pointed, Min had viewings about her.  Unless she goes through a situation like Moiraine's, she cannot die yet.

 

[benr]

 

 

I sincerely doubt that Birgitte will die at all.  In her viewing of Birgitte, Min saw images that, " indicated more adventures than a woman could have in one lifetime. Strangely, some were connected to an ugly man who was older that she, and others to an ugly man who was much younger, yet somehow Min knew they were the same man."  (WH ch 12)

 

 

 

I always took this viewing to include all of Birgitte's lives, hence the "more adventures than a woman could have in one lifetime".

[Eleint]

I always took this viewing to include all of Birgitte's lives, hence the "more adventures than a woman could have in one lifetime".

 

Jordan said that Min only sees the future.  Thus, these are in the future.  It's easy to see, too.  Mat blows the horn in the Last Battle, Birgitte interacts with Gaidal (he may not have been gone like she thought, just avoiding her because she was breaking the 'rules'), and later on she ends up with him.  She's fairly young-looking, so if he's born right after TLB, it'll be a 40 or so year old with a 20 year old.  If Lan (late 40s) can be with Nyn (late 20s), so can Birgitte with Gaidal.

[MikeRiley]

In all her lives, Gaidal is older than her. The fact that Min has viewings of her with a younger ugly man says she'll survive the battle. Those viewings have to be in her current lifetime because in the next she'll be born after Gaidal.

[Luckers]

Jordan said that Min only sees the future.

 

There is a problem with this--she sees blood in Taim's past. Don't get me wrong, I've read that quote too--but she saw  what she saw.

[Casco]

I think anyone can se blood in Taim´s past...wieving or not. Anyone in the Randwold who know Taim, knows that. I dont think it was a wieving, it was only a saying from Min. "I see blood in Taim´s past (she did know the man) and i se blood in his future (wieving).

[Luckers]

No, it was a viewing.

 

"Did you see anything, Min?" Rand said.

 

[Min assures Perrin that the Aiel dont care about her viewings]

 

"As for your question, nothing of any use. Taim has blood in his past and blood in his future, but you could guess that. He's a dangerous man. They seem to be gathering images like Aes Sedai."

 

Whilst Min may agree with you that anyone could see that about Taim, she states that her viewing shows it.

[Shard]

I believe Min even said the same of Hanlon, that he had blood on his hands and it would be crossed with more blood before he died.

[Luckers]

Indeed, she sees that he has killed and raped before, and will again.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Lets examine what she actually said:

 

Daved Hanlon:

ACoS ch 35

 

Min's breath caught at the aura that suddenly flashed around him, bruised hues so dark they seemed nearly black.

 

"Don't trust that man, Lady Caraline."  She could not stop herself.  "He will murder anyone he thingks is in his way; he'll kill for a whim, kill anybody."

 

and, a few lines later

 

How to explain what she did know about Hanlon now, that his hands would be red with more tapes and murders before he died?

 

All future.  She knows about his past from Caraline and Rand's comments, but her viewings are all in the future tense.

 

Mazrim Taim:

ACoS ch 2

 

"As for your question, nothing of any use.  Taim has blood in his past and blood in his future, but you could guess that.  He's a dangerous man.  They seem to be gathering images like Aes Sedai."

 

The sentence in question, "Taim has blood in his past and blood in his future", is simply a statement of fact, that anyone could guess, as she says.  It is not a summary of her viewings (despite Encyclopaedia-WOT categorizing it as such); as to what she actually sees, she says that it is "nothing of any use".  So, she is not describing a viewing of Taim's past.  She is describing Mazrim Taim.

 

The other section that is commonly associated with problems of Min seeing only the future is the first set of viewings described in TEoTW ch 15.  The image around Lan of "a babe in a cradle holding a sword" and the image around Mat of "A red eagle" are the most difficult to explain, however, the images represent how their past will affect their future choices, so again, the only events that she sees are those yet to come.

 

Min can only see the future.

[Luckers]

Lets examine what she actually said:

 

Daved Hanlon:

ACoS ch 35

 

 

Quote

Min's breath caught at the aura that suddenly flashed around him, bruised hues so dark they seemed nearly black.

 

"Don't trust that man, Lady Caraline."  She could not stop herself.  "He will murder anyone he thingks is in his way; he'll kill for a whim, kill anybody."

 

and, a few lines later

 

 

Quote

How to explain what she did know about Hanlon now, that his hands would be red with more tapes and murders before he died?

 

All future.  She knows about his past from Caraline and Rand's comments, but her viewings are all in the future tense.

 

Your correct, i looked at the encylopaedia comment which states falsley that she saw rape and murder in his past--presumably a deduction brough about by the use of the phrase 'more rapes and murders' but hardly conclusive.

 

The sentence in question, "Taim has blood in his past and blood in his future", is simply a statement of fact, that anyone could guess, as she says.  It is not a summary of her viewings (despite Encyclopaedia-WOT categorizing it as such); as to what she actually sees, she says that it is "nothing of any use".  So, she is not describing a viewing of Taim's past.  She is describing Mazrim Taim

 

I was not using the encylopaedia wot description for that. As i stated, she is responding directly to Rand's question about her viewings--she is not saying what anyone could guess--indeed, thats why she says she saw nothing of use--she saw that Taim had blood in his past, but anyone could guess that.

 

Either way her comments make clear that the blood she sees in his past is a viewing. She acknowledges that anyone could have seen that even without her skills, but it doesn't change that it was a viewing. In fact thats part of what makes it clear it was a viewing.

 

I addressed all that in my previous comment.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Either way her comments make clear that the blood she sees in his past is a viewing. She acknowledges that anyone could have seen that even without her skills, but it doesn't change that it was a viewing. In fact thats part of what makes it clear it was a viewing.

 

I simply don't read it that way at all.  The only comment that she ties directly to her viewings of Taim is that she saw "nothing of any use".  The rest is just conversation, roughly on topic, but not a direct description of any particular viewing.

 

I understand how you're getting where you're getting.  I just don't agree that that is the correct interpretation.  The fact that Rand asked her about a viewing doesn't actually mean that she was describing one when she responded.

[MikeRiley]

Whatever she saw might have pointed at him already being a killer and he'll continue it. Sort of like already having red hands in the viewing before his next kill. It would still be a vision of the future. Or "blood in his past" wasn't a viewing but she used that part as a way to describe his future. If she saw blood in his future it would be like saying "He was a killer then, he's a killer now."

[Luckers]

It's not just that she was directly responding to Rand's question about what she'd viewed--she also sees fit to specify that she understands that anyone could see what she'd seen. She says 'I saw nothing of use--Taim has blood in his past--but anyone could see that.' That anyone could see it is why it was not of use, but it was nevertheless a viewing.

 

Otherwise why specify that. The flow--the statement that she was answering his question, the words she used to do so.

 

This was a viewing.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Otherwise why specify that. The flow--the statement that she was answering his question, the words she used to do so.

 

This was a viewing.

 

I just disagree.  And I've re-read it a couple of times to make sure.  Let me address this point:

 

She says 'I saw nothing of use--Taim has blood in his past--but anyone could see that.'

 

She actually doesn't do it in that fashion.  The thoughts are in two separate sentences.  To recap, she actually said:

 

As for your question, nothing of any use.

 

Stop.  Then,

 

Taim has blood in his past and blood in his future, but you could guess that.  He's a dangerous man.

 

None of that is a specific vision, and it is in separate sentences.  Summary of knowledge.  Did Min have visions of blood in his future?  Probably.  And of course, everyone knows he has blood in his past.  All that combines to make him a dangerous man.  Those sentences do not mean that she saw a vision of the blood in his past.